Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:08 pm

HII wrote:

JSX most definitely pays ramp fees, landing fees, PAX fees, among others. The ONLY money SNA is missing out on with JSX pax is pass through revenue from retail and food, that's it.


Actually, when you operate at an FBO, you don't. You pay for services used at the FBO, not any traditional airline related fees.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
dstblj52
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:23 pm

HII wrote:
Flflyer83 wrote:
They’re, obviously, flying a scheduled passenger service with 30 passenger aircraft, why are they not required to operate as a Part 121 carrier and operate via TSA controlled facilities?


Because they operate as a Part 135 carrier, similar to others around the country. Quite simple actually.

135 is explicitly for non-scheduled and charter operations, their current business model relies on a legal loophole, and let's not call it anything else this is a corporate structure like Norwegian that might be in technical compliance but is certainly not complying with the spirit of the law. I would argue that someone like NetJets is clearly a nonscheduled service where you can request consultations and quotes on what different operations would cost, whereas JSX explicitly asks you to book a flight and have a full schedule where take off, and landing times are defined and they certainly appear to act as a scheduled carrier, the only other exception is the 9 seater commuter exception which they obviously don't fall into
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5001
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:23 pm

janders wrote:
HII wrote:

JSX most definitely pays ramp fees, landing fees, PAX fees, among others. The ONLY money SNA is missing out on with JSX pax is pass through revenue from retail and food, that's it.


Actually, when you operate at an FBO, you don't. You pay for services used at the FBO, not any traditional airline related fees.

Airport feeds are charged through the fbo all the time. That’s why when you fly a Cessna in to ORD you are required to go to the fbo to pay the required fees
 
DashTrash
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:44 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:32 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
HII wrote:
Flflyer83 wrote:
They’re, obviously, flying a scheduled passenger service with 30 passenger aircraft, why are they not required to operate as a Part 121 carrier and operate via TSA controlled facilities?


Because they operate as a Part 135 carrier, similar to others around the country. Quite simple actually.

135 is explicitly for non-scheduled and charter operations, their current business model relies on a legal loophole, and let's not call it anything else this is a corporate structure like Norwegian that might be in technical compliance but is certainly not complying with the spirit of the law. I would argue that someone like NetJets is clearly a nonscheduled service where you can request consultations and quotes on what different operations would cost, whereas JSX explicitly asks you to book a flight and have a full schedule where take off, and landing times are defined and they certainly appear to act as a scheduled carrier, the only other exception is the 9 seater commuter exception which they obviously don't fall into

Well said, mostly. JSX is most definitely not operating under what Part 135 is intended for.

Netjets is a different animal, operating under Part 91K (mostly). It does not hold itself out for public charter. The only way to book a Netjets flight is to own a share of an aircraft, lease a share of an aircraft or hold a Marquis Card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:11 pm

departedflights wrote:
SurfandSnow wrote:
Interesting that NK just added service to LAS and OAK, and now another carrier flying to those very two same destinations gets kicked out. Then again, WN found out the hard way that exploiting loopholes at SNA could come back to bite you in the end... I guess there is precedent for Orange County making life difficult for some of its airline tenants...


What was Southwest doing? I'm not asking to challenge you... I am asking because I genuinely would like to know.


5-10 years ago, Southwest Airlines rapidly expanded at SNA by utilizing non-permanent slots. This enabled WN to suddenly offer all kinds of new nonstop services beyond the LAS/OAK/PHX/SJC/SMF that they had been offering. As you can imagine, WN's new flights to AUS, DAL, DEN, HOU, MCI, MDW, PDX, SEA, SFO and STL irked many competitors, such as longstanding SNA partners AA, AS and UA. The airport eventually forged a deal with WN where the airline gained additional permanent SNA slots in exchange for surrendering quite a bit of their "temporary" capacity allocations. In the end, WN had to reduce its SNA offering back down to its 5 original nonstop markets - and the massive new hub (or whatever WN wants to call it) at DEN. Of course, SNA's loss may have been LGB's gain. It will be very interesting to see what WN does with all of the LGB slots it just got from B6.
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
B737Captain1980
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:14 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:13 pm

F9Animal wrote:
Maybe JSX will be better off without that airport?


At the prices JSX is charging, probably not. SNA is one of their most profitable cities. Flights are always full and they're often more expensive than the carriers. This is just my opinion but my guess is the airport commission didn't like an airline coming to SNA and not going thru them. If I controlled the airport and someone did that, I wouldn't like it either. Because JSX was using ACI JET, they didn't need airport permission to operate. No slots, no gate space requests, AND no fees that the other carriers pay to the airport. What did Alex think was going to happen. They offered him to operate in the terminal like everyone else, but he refused.

If I was JSX, I'd just pay the fees and ask to operate as is from ACI JET. They may say yes if you ask nicely enough in private. At the end of the day, its all about the dollar.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:23 pm

DashTrash wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
HII wrote:

Because they operate as a Part 135 carrier, similar to others around the country. Quite simple actually.

135 is explicitly for non-scheduled and charter operations, their current business model relies on a legal loophole, and let's not call it anything else this is a corporate structure like Norwegian that might be in technical compliance but is certainly not complying with the spirit of the law. I would argue that someone like NetJets is clearly a nonscheduled service where you can request consultations and quotes on what different operations would cost, whereas JSX explicitly asks you to book a flight and have a full schedule where take off, and landing times are defined and they certainly appear to act as a scheduled carrier, the only other exception is the 9 seater commuter exception which they obviously don't fall into

Well said, mostly. JSX is most definitely not operating under what Part 135 is intended for.

Netjets is a different animal, operating under Part 91K (mostly). It does not hold itself out for public charter. The only way to book a Netjets flight is to own a share of an aircraft, lease a share of an aircraft or hold a Marquis Card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It’s not what anyone thinks is the “.spirit” of the law or regulation, what matters is what’s written down, certified by the regulators and operated that matters. JSX meets all the regulations and operates within the FAA regulations. What you believe is the “spirit” of the law matters not and is just a rationalization.
 
departedflights
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 2:50 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:28 pm

SurfandSnow wrote:
departedflights wrote:
SurfandSnow wrote:
Interesting that NK just added service to LAS and OAK, and now another carrier flying to those very two same destinations gets kicked out. Then again, WN found out the hard way that exploiting loopholes at SNA could come back to bite you in the end... I guess there is precedent for Orange County making life difficult for some of its airline tenants...


What was Southwest doing? I'm not asking to challenge you... I am asking because I genuinely would like to know.


5-10 years ago, Southwest Airlines rapidly expanded at SNA by utilizing non-permanent slots. This enabled WN to suddenly offer all kinds of new nonstop services beyond the LAS/OAK/PHX/SJC/SMF that they had been offering. As you can imagine, WN's new flights to AUS, DAL, DEN, HOU, MCI, MDW, PDX, SEA, SFO and STL irked many competitors, such as longstanding SNA partners AA, AS and UA. The airport eventually forged a deal with WN where the airline gained additional permanent SNA slots in exchange for surrendering quite a bit of their "temporary" capacity allocations. In the end, WN had to reduce its SNA offering back down to its 5 original nonstop markets - and the massive new hub (or whatever WN wants to call it) at DEN. Of course, SNA's loss may have been LGB's gain. It will be very interesting to see what WN does with all of the LGB slots it just got from B6.


Thank you for the explanation.
The opinions are expressed are my own and do not represent those of anyone else, including my coworkers or my employer.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:32 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DashTrash wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
135 is explicitly for non-scheduled and charter operations, their current business model relies on a legal loophole, and let's not call it anything else this is a corporate structure like Norwegian that might be in technical compliance but is certainly not complying with the spirit of the law. I would argue that someone like NetJets is clearly a nonscheduled service where you can request consultations and quotes on what different operations would cost, whereas JSX explicitly asks you to book a flight and have a full schedule where take off, and landing times are defined and they certainly appear to act as a scheduled carrier, the only other exception is the 9 seater commuter exception which they obviously don't fall into

Well said, mostly. JSX is most definitely not operating under what Part 135 is intended for.

Netjets is a different animal, operating under Part 91K (mostly). It does not hold itself out for public charter. The only way to book a Netjets flight is to own a share of an aircraft, lease a share of an aircraft or hold a Marquis Card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It’s not what anyone thinks is the “.spirit” of the law or regulation, what matters is what’s written down, certified by the regulators and operated that matters. JSX meets all the regulations and operates within the FAA regulations. What you believe is the “spirit” of the law matters not and is just a rationalization.

Tell me exactly how you believe JSX is acting as a nonscheduled airline? They very clearly have a schedule that is sold on a take it or leave it basis
 
HII
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:53 pm

janders wrote:
HII wrote:

JSX most definitely pays ramp fees, landing fees, PAX fees, among others. The ONLY money SNA is missing out on with JSX pax is pass through revenue from retail and food, that's it.


Actually, when you operate at an FBO, you don't. You pay for services used at the FBO, not any traditional airline related fees.


Most of the airport fees from JSX are paid directly to the airports. Pax fees and landing fees for SNA are specifically paid to the airport. I used to be the person that paid them.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:09 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DashTrash wrote:
Well said, mostly. JSX is most definitely not operating under what Part 135 is intended for.

Netjets is a different animal, operating under Part 91K (mostly). It does not hold itself out for public charter. The only way to book a Netjets flight is to own a share of an aircraft, lease a share of an aircraft or hold a Marquis Card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It’s not what anyone thinks is the “.spirit” of the law or regulation, what matters is what’s written down, certified by the regulators and operated that matters. JSX meets all the regulations and operates within the FAA regulations. What you believe is the “spirit” of the law matters not and is just a rationalization.

Tell me exactly how you believe JSX is acting as a nonscheduled airline? They very clearly have a schedule that is sold on a take it or leave it basis


Where did I say they were “non-scheduled”; they clearly are, but Part 380 allows for exactly their operation. Have they been cited by the FAA for a violation? Has a cease desist order been presented to them? No, they’re legal and characterizing them as using a “loophole” is being insulting and pejorative.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:19 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not what anyone thinks is the “.spirit” of the law or regulation, what matters is what’s written down, certified by the regulators and operated that matters. JSX meets all the regulations and operates within the FAA regulations. What you believe is the “spirit” of the law matters not and is just a rationalization.

Tell me exactly how you believe JSX is acting as a nonscheduled airline? They very clearly have a schedule that is sold on a take it or leave it basis


Where did I say they were “non-scheduled”; they clearly are, but Part 380 allows for exactly their operation. Have they been cited by the FAA for a violation? Has a cease desist order been presented to them? No, they’re legal and characterizing them as using a “loophole” is being insulting and pejorative.

In what way would you say setting up two separate companies under the same holding company to get around being classified as a 121 operation not a loophole?
 
User avatar
usxguy
Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:31 pm

HII wrote:
FlyingElvii wrote:
phxa340 wrote:
SNA I’m sure has their reasons, they want as much air service as possible. I’m sure JSX has violated something or not been paying their bills. To say uncalled for is .... not really looking at this objectively or logically.

Jax is operating as a charter from the FBO, no TSA groping.

And no pass thru fees, passenger tax money, space rental and ramp fees. THAT is what this is really all about. $$$$$


JSX most definitely pays ramp fees, landing fees, PAX fees, among others. The ONLY money SNA is missing out on with JSX pax is pass through revenue from retail and food, that's it.


For the MAJORITY of operators: When you use the FBO, you pay the landing fees thru them and ONLY the FBO handling fees/rent. There is NO agreement between the airport and operator when you use the FBO. The airport makes NO money off of you. JSX may have made some direct deals, but the FBO is the one still on the hook for the fees if they don't pay. Lots of airports have been "catching" on to the 135s and non-sterile ops. Ever wonder why some EAS markets and 135s use FBOs and NOT the terminal? Seems only a handful of airports are OK with this (DFW, BNA, MEM) but others require anything that looks or smells like a schedule to use the main terminal FOR the reasons SOLELY for revenue. Ever wonder why Kenmore and others use BFI and NOT SeaTac??

This is also why no one has started up Ft Myers to Key West service once Cape Air pulled out. The airport authority has it in their lease agreements that NO Part 135 schedule or 135 "part 380" operators can use the FBO, they all have to go thru the main terminal. And let me tell ya, the costs are NOT cheap to use the main terminal at RSW, even with their incentive program for a small operator.
Last edited by usxguy on Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
xx
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6229
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:36 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
Tell me exactly how you believe JSX is acting as a nonscheduled airline? They very clearly have a schedule that is sold on a take it or leave it basis


Where did I say they were “non-scheduled”; they clearly are, but Part 380 allows for exactly their operation. Have they been cited by the FAA for a violation? Has a cease desist order been presented to them? No, they’re legal and characterizing them as using a “loophole” is being insulting and pejorative.

In what way would you say setting up two separate companies under the same holding company to get around being classified as a 121 operation not a loophole?


In the way that it’s allowed and approved under the regulation. Part 380 is there for this very reason.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... %20380.pdf
Last edited by GalaxyFlyer on Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
blooc350
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:44 pm

I saw them when i was flying out of Signature....30 random people without having one single luggage inspected by TSA............ NO THANKS
 
weaglibrium
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:47 pm

usxguy wrote:
HII wrote:
FlyingElvii wrote:
For the MAJORITY of operators: When you use the FBO, you pay the landing fees thru them and ONLY the FBO handling fees/rent. There is NO agreement between the airport and operator when you use the FBO. The airport makes NO money off of you. JSX may have made some direct deals, but the FBO is the one still on the hook for the fees if they don't pay. Lots of airports have been "catching" on to the 135s and non-sterile ops. Ever wonder why some EAS markets and 135s use FBOs and NOT the terminal? Seems only a handful of airports are OK with this (DFW, BNA, MEM) but others require anything that looks or smells like a schedule to use the main terminal FOR the reasons SOLELY for revenue. Ever wonder why Kenmore and others use BFI and NOT SeaTac??


So much in this post is wrong.

Most cabin-class aircraft pay landing fees. The FBO may act as an intermediary - but the airport still gets its money. Unless the carriers are part of an excluded class representing less than 1% of total enplanements, they are also paying PFCs - which is settled between the airport and operator; the larger ones use the Airline Clearing House.

Making them use the terminal for "revenue" is a non-starter. The vast majority of airline rates and charges in the US schemes are cost-recovery, where the airport theoretically receives the same amount of revenue whether it has 1 airline or 100 airlines, 1 passenger or 1 billion passengers, except as their costs increase.

Most EAS non-sterile operations have more to do with TSA staffing at stations enplaning at best 10 passengers a day split between two flights.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4787
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:21 pm

I don't get why people hate JSX. Their customers don't enter the normal airport terminals. They are not a security risk to anyone except the people on that plane who are all taking the risk. If you actually feel safe with TSA feel free but sorry to tell you those blind tests are not very reassuring. If you don't feel safe on JSX then don't take it. I have flown it more then a few times and felt safer and loved the experience.

TSA Failed To Detect Weapons, Bombs During Most Screening Tests. CBS news one of many reports of the same. TSA is not some perfect operation and JSX is out of control, that's not reality
 
NickLAX
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:04 am

I'm 10 miles from SNA - I've used JSX 3 times, the last one was it for me, weather issues, left stranded in SJC - NOT their issue, their customer service was quite lacking due to the agency I used booked them through B6. I ended up getting home that day on WN on my own dime. I don't think our agency EVER got that ticket refunded.

Suffice to say those saying "SNA needs more flights and international" - again 10 min away and an EARLY AM run for me to LAX is 45 min, late evening back home the same or less. 10 years ago I 90% flew out of SNA and connected through DEN, SFO or ORD to get intl. Now I'll 90% of the time just fly out of LAX and get a nonstop and avoid the hassle of a connection. Even with BAD LA traffic, LAX is still always quicker than a connection will be.
 
DashTrash
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:44 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:28 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not what anyone thinks is the “.spirit” of the law or regulation, what matters is what’s written down, certified by the regulators and operated that matters. JSX meets all the regulations and operates within the FAA regulations. What you believe is the “spirit” of the law matters not and is just a rationalization.

Tell me exactly how you believe JSX is acting as a nonscheduled airline? They very clearly have a schedule that is sold on a take it or leave it basis


Where did I say they were “non-scheduled”; they clearly are, but Part 380 allows for exactly their operation. Have they been cited by the FAA for a violation? Has a cease desist order been presented to them? No, they’re legal and characterizing them as using a “loophole” is being insulting and pejorative.

You’re not wrong about this, but: There is no way this side of the hot place that anyone that had anything to do with writing 380 intended for it to be used so an operator could remove 7-20 seats from an aircraft certificated for 37-50 seats and fly it in a scheduled operation. With that being said, the term “shady” comes to mind. Otherwise, those aircraft would be flying on a 121 certificate in a configuration closer to what was certified. Especially on the 145s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dstblj52
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:59 am

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
I don't get why people hate JSX. Their customers don't enter the normal airport terminals. They are not a security risk to anyone except the people on that plane who are all taking the risk. If you actually feel safe with TSA feel free but sorry to tell you those blind tests are not very reassuring. If you don't feel safe on JSX then don't take it. I have flown it more then a few times and felt safer and loved the experience.

TSA Failed To Detect Weapons, Bombs During Most Screening Tests. CBS news one of many reports of the same. TSA is not some perfect operation and JSX is out of control, that's not reality

The problem I have with JSX is around there shady way around regulations, I agree the TSA is likely ineffective but instead of competing head to head with other competitors they setup this byzantine corporate structure to operate through a loophole which gives them a definitively unfair advantage in the market place, if you think there is a market for scheduled service on this route in a nicely configured jet cool get a 121 cert and try it out.
 
weaglibrium
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:06 am

DashTrash wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
Tell me exactly how you believe JSX is acting as a nonscheduled airline? They very clearly have a schedule that is sold on a take it or leave it basis


Where did I say they were “non-scheduled”; they clearly are, but Part 380 allows for exactly their operation. Have they been cited by the FAA for a violation? Has a cease desist order been presented to them? No, they’re legal and characterizing them as using a “loophole” is being insulting and pejorative.

You’re not wrong about this, but: There is no way this side of the hot place that anyone that had anything to do with writing 380 intended for it to be used so an operator could remove 7-20 seats from an aircraft certificated for 37-50 seats and fly it in a scheduled operation. With that being said, the term “shady” comes to mind. Otherwise, those aircraft would be flying on a 121 certificate in a configuration closer to what was certified. Especially on the 145s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are conflating multiple issues. Part 380 is the commercial / operational relationship and has nothing to do with the benefits of 30 or fewer seats - most Part 380 prospectuses are filed with mainline aircraft. The benefits of <31 seats fall under the purview of Part 139 (airport certification) which enables any chartered/unscheduled operation to occur at any capable field regardless of certification category or lack thereof - same as scheduled and greater than 9 seats. Secondarily, the TSA has decided that 30 seat operations operated on a charter basis have a different security protocol than scheduled flights of 10 or more seats. Neither of these items has anything to do with Part 380 (Public Charters). It is coincidental that the bounds are 10 and 30 seats, but it - again - has nothing to do with Part 380.

Operating within the overlap of these three sets of regulations allows for competitive advantages that a Part 121 scheduled operation would not allow. They wouldn't be able to fly to Concord, Coachella Valley, Southern Pines, or as they formerly did - Hawthorne. They wouldn't be able to offer passengers an alternative to the standard TSA regimen. But it's not like this is free - they take a revenue hit by not having as many seats on well capable aircraft. Their tradeoff is between capacity and the benefits of operating in this unique space, obviously hoping to generate a revenue premium.
 
dstblj52
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:19 am

weaglibrium wrote:
DashTrash wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Where did I say they were “non-scheduled”; they clearly are, but Part 380 allows for exactly their operation. Have they been cited by the FAA for a violation? Has a cease desist order been presented to them? No, they’re legal and characterizing them as using a “loophole” is being insulting and pejorative.

You’re not wrong about this, but: There is no way this side of the hot place that anyone that had anything to do with writing 380 intended for it to be used so an operator could remove 7-20 seats from an aircraft certificated for 37-50 seats and fly it in a scheduled operation. With that being said, the term “shady” comes to mind. Otherwise, those aircraft would be flying on a 121 certificate in a configuration closer to what was certified. Especially on the 145s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are conflating multiple issues. Part 380 is the commercial / operational relationship and has nothing to do with the benefits of 30 or fewer seats - most Part 380 prospectuses are filed with mainline aircraft. The benefits of <31 seats fall under the purview of Part 139 (airport certification) which enables any chartered/unscheduled operation to occur at any capable field regardless of certification category or lack thereof - same as scheduled and greater than 9 seats. Secondarily, the TSA has decided that 30 seat operations operated on a charter basis have a different security protocol than scheduled flights of 10 or more seats. Neither of these items has anything to do with Part 380 (Public Charters). It is coincidental that the bounds are 10 and 30 seats, but it - again - has nothing to do with Part 380.

Operating within the overlap of these three sets of regulations allows for competitive advantages that a Part 121 scheduled operation would not allow. They wouldn't be able to fly to Concord, Coachella Valley, Southern Pines, or as they formerly did - Hawthorne. They wouldn't be able to offer passengers an alternative to the standard TSA regimen. But it's not like this is free - they take a revenue hit by not having as many seats on well capable aircraft. Their tradeoff is between capacity and the benefits of operating in this unique space, obviously hoping to generate a revenue premium.

And that's the problem its not a level playing field if this is allowable for them why can't skywests of the world use there safer regulated to a higher standards aircraft in the same operation, this rule set either needs to be opened to all aircarriers with jets under 30 seats or closed, I also have problems with their use of pilots without an ATP as an FO again its compliant with how the three laws in question line up buts it was never the intention of how stuff like this was supposed to work and I hope its written out of the 135-380 which could be done rather easily.
 
williaminsd
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:52 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:37 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DashTrash wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
135 is explicitly for non-scheduled and charter operations, their current business model relies on a legal loophole, and let's not call it anything else this is a corporate structure like Norwegian that might be in technical compliance but is certainly not complying with the spirit of the law. I would argue that someone like NetJets is clearly a nonscheduled service where you can request consultations and quotes on what different operations would cost, whereas JSX explicitly asks you to book a flight and have a full schedule where take off, and landing times are defined and they certainly appear to act as a scheduled carrier, the only other exception is the 9 seater commuter exception which they obviously don't fall into

Well said, mostly. JSX is most definitely not operating under what Part 135 is intended for.

Netjets is a different animal, operating under Part 91K (mostly). It does not hold itself out for public charter. The only way to book a Netjets flight is to own a share of an aircraft, lease a share of an aircraft or hold a Marquis Card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It’s not what anyone thinks is the “.spirit” of the law or regulation, what matters is what’s written down, certified by the regulators and operated that matters. JSX meets all the regulations and operates within the FAA regulations. What you believe is the “spirit” of the law matters not and is just a rationalization.


^This...

It's not a "loophole," it's the law.

If SNA wants to change the law and prevent JSX from operating as they do under the law, have at it.

The hysterical screeching from some here is testament to ignorance and nothing more. Now because JSX went to its customers to fight SNA instead of to court makes me question its standing, but their model seems to work everywhere else and has not been succesfully challenged, so unless SNA has carved its own "loophole," not sure why JSX wouldn't be flying again by end of month.

If the "spirit" of a law is so important, it is written into the "letter" of the law.

Precision in legal language, and thus equal protection, is pretty darn important, even at SNA...
 
dstblj52
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:43 am

williaminsd wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DashTrash wrote:
Well said, mostly. JSX is most definitely not operating under what Part 135 is intended for.

Netjets is a different animal, operating under Part 91K (mostly). It does not hold itself out for public charter. The only way to book a Netjets flight is to own a share of an aircraft, lease a share of an aircraft or hold a Marquis Card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It’s not what anyone thinks is the “.spirit” of the law or regulation, what matters is what’s written down, certified by the regulators and operated that matters. JSX meets all the regulations and operates within the FAA regulations. What you believe is the “spirit” of the law matters not and is just a rationalization.


^This...

It's not a "loophole," it's the law.

If SNA wants to change the law and prevent JSX from operating as they do under the law, have at it.

The hysterical screeching from some here is testament to ignorance and nothing more. Now because JSX went to its customers to fight SNA instead of to court makes me question its standing, but their model seems to work everywhere else and has not been succesfully challenged, so unless SNA has carved its own "loophole," not sure why JSX wouldn't be flying again by end of month.

If the "spirit" of a law is so important, it is written into the "letter" of the law.

Precision in legal language, and thus equal protection, is pretty darn important, even at SNA...

Because they're getting closed down by local regulations regarding the operation of schedule service from FBO's due to renovations, not the FAA and local airport authorities have relatively broad powers provided they treat everyone equally, and so if all schedule passenger service must go to the terminal then JSX has to go to the terminal.
 
williaminsd
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:52 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:55 am

dstblj52 wrote:
williaminsd wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not what anyone thinks is the “.spirit” of the law or regulation, what matters is what’s written down, certified by the regulators and operated that matters. JSX meets all the regulations and operates within the FAA regulations. What you believe is the “spirit” of the law matters not and is just a rationalization.


^This...

It's not a "loophole," it's the law.

If SNA wants to change the law and prevent JSX from operating as they do under the law, have at it.

The hysterical screeching from some here is testament to ignorance and nothing more. Now because JSX went to its customers to fight SNA instead of to court makes me question its standing, but their model seems to work everywhere else and has not been succesfully challenged, so unless SNA has carved its own "loophole," not sure why JSX wouldn't be flying again by end of month.

If the "spirit" of a law is so important, it is written into the "letter" of the law.

Precision in legal language, and thus equal protection, is pretty darn important, even at SNA...

Because they're getting closed down by local regulations regarding the operation of schedule service from FBO's due to renovations, not the FAA and local airport authorities have relatively broad powers provided they treat everyone equally, and so if all schedule passenger service must go to the terminal then JSX has to go to the terminal.


Well that answers why they went to customers and not to court. But if I understand you correctly, SNA claims JSX would be made whole by locating in the main terminal. JSX would claim damages because their model is based on no TSA delays, among other advantages, from operating at a FBO.

Not my area of expertise obviously, but clearly there must be some differences in fees paid to airport, or why the action? If there were some moral or safety imperative, the effective date would be immediate. Giving JSX until end of year suggest the airport foresees negotiations in its future...
 
weaglibrium
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:57 am

dstblj52 wrote:
weaglibrium wrote:
DashTrash wrote:
You’re not wrong about this, but: There is no way this side of the hot place that anyone that had anything to do with writing 380 intended for it to be used so an operator could remove 7-20 seats from an aircraft certificated for 37-50 seats and fly it in a scheduled operation. With that being said, the term “shady” comes to mind. Otherwise, those aircraft would be flying on a 121 certificate in a configuration closer to what was certified. Especially on the 145s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are conflating multiple issues. Part 380 is the commercial / operational relationship and has nothing to do with the benefits of 30 or fewer seats - most Part 380 prospectuses are filed with mainline aircraft. The benefits of <31 seats fall under the purview of Part 139 (airport certification) which enables any chartered/unscheduled operation to occur at any capable field regardless of certification category or lack thereof - same as scheduled and greater than 9 seats. Secondarily, the TSA has decided that 30 seat operations operated on a charter basis have a different security protocol than scheduled flights of 10 or more seats. Neither of these items has anything to do with Part 380 (Public Charters). It is coincidental that the bounds are 10 and 30 seats, but it - again - has nothing to do with Part 380.

Operating within the overlap of these three sets of regulations allows for competitive advantages that a Part 121 scheduled operation would not allow. They wouldn't be able to fly to Concord, Coachella Valley, Southern Pines, or as they formerly did - Hawthorne. They wouldn't be able to offer passengers an alternative to the standard TSA regimen. But it's not like this is free - they take a revenue hit by not having as many seats on well capable aircraft. Their tradeoff is between capacity and the benefits of operating in this unique space, obviously hoping to generate a revenue premium.

And that's the problem its not a level playing field if this is allowable for them why can't skywests of the world use there safer regulated to a higher standards aircraft in the same operation, this rule set either needs to be opened to all aircarriers with jets under 30 seats or closed, I also have problems with their use of pilots without an ATP as an FO again its compliant with how the three laws in question line up buts it was never the intention of how stuff like this was supposed to work and I hope its written out of the 135-380 which could be done rather easily.


It's a perfectly level playing field. SkyWest is welcome to start a clone operation tomorrow.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5027
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:00 am

Cubsrule wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
Does SNA really not benefit from these flights?..

Jet Suite Probably doesn't make that much for SNA that they would make special rules for them that they can't make for anybody else. They're an Air carrier and whether they're Part 135, Part 121 supplemental or Part 121 Domestic doesn't matter. What matters is? nobody is above the law. What JSX is asking for? SNA might be hard pressed to justify to the FAA, TSA, and anybody else which puts them in a bad light when it comes to funding, so I'd doubt JSX is really worth the Hassle to Justify. We know what JSX wants but at what cost is it to SNA? or? their airport development funds? Have any of you thought of that?


What exactly is JSX requesting that "SNA might be hard pressed to justify to the FAS [or] TSA?" Their model is totally legal.

well? Were another carrier to want to bypass TSA and operate remotely? SNA might be Hard pressed to tell them NO as they already did this for one carrier and what you can do for One? you CAN do for another. So what's tp prevent another carrier with maybe a twice a week 777 from operating remotely? they May or may NOT carry any more pax than JSX. So under what legal grounds would you deny them while Honoring JSX? Because? What's good for the Goose? Is good for the Gander. And Lets not dance around the fact that SNA is a desirable destination and will be even More so when this Covid -19 virus is in hand. I don't have anything against JSX. But? When you stretch for One in a public? You've let the Camel's nose under the tent flap and soon toy might be sleeping with the Camel in your Tent. And? 1this is what I think SNA is trying to avoid. Right or NOT? It's good Logic. And? That's what I'm stating. There are other commercial Airports that might be in the same situation and it could be SNA is setting a precedent.
 
williaminsd
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:52 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:24 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Jet Suite Probably doesn't make that much for SNA that they would make special rules for them that they can't make for anybody else. They're an Air carrier and whether they're Part 135, Part 121 supplemental or Part 121 Domestic doesn't matter. What matters is? nobody is above the law. What JSX is asking for? SNA might be hard pressed to justify to the FAA, TSA, and anybody else which puts them in a bad light when it comes to funding, so I'd doubt JSX is really worth the Hassle to Justify. We know what JSX wants but at what cost is it to SNA? or? their airport development funds? Have any of you thought of that?


What exactly is JSX requesting that "SNA might be hard pressed to justify to the FAS [or] TSA?" Their model is totally legal.

well? Were another carrier to want to bypass TSA and operate remotely? SNA might be Hard pressed to tell them NO as they already did this for one carrier and what you can do for One? you CAN do for another. So what's tp prevent another carrier with maybe a twice a week 777 from operating remotely? they May or may NOT carry any more pax than JSX. So under what legal grounds would you deny them while Honoring JSX? Because? What's good for the Goose? Is good for the Gander. And Lets not dance around the fact that SNA is a desirable destination and will be even More so when this Covid -19 virus is in hand. I don't have anything against JSX. But? When you stretch for One in a public? You've let the Camel's nose under the tent flap and soon toy might be sleeping with the Camel in your Tent. And? 1this is what I think SNA is trying to avoid. Right or NOT? It's good Logic. And? That's what I'm stating. There are other commercial Airports that might be in the same situation and it could be SNA is setting a precedent.


Wouldn't they still have to comply with applicable federal regulations? I think the runway at SNA might play a role in your 777 scenario as well lol. JSX simply is operating a business as allowed under the law. There is nothing "shady" about it, nor is there any "stretching" of regulations or law for the sole benefit of JSX. And I'm pretty sure there are no camels or geese...

Do JSX pax counts apply to any SNA passenger or flight total caps?

If not, then that is probably what this is all about. OC nimby(s) do not want to see caps eroded and are using land use regulations to enforce them.

One thing's for sure. It's not about safety, security, and accountability...
 
airplaneboy
Posts: 715
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:35 am

So basically JSX is a scheduled airline operating on 135 instead of 121, when they in fact are operating regular schedules with multiple daily flights as a “charter airline.” Sorry, not familiar with the difference but trying to summarize what I’ve read in this thread. Please help educate the non airline folks.
 
DashTrash
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:44 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:24 pm

weaglibrium wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
weaglibrium wrote:

You are conflating multiple issues. Part 380 is the commercial / operational relationship and has nothing to do with the benefits of 30 or fewer seats - most Part 380 prospectuses are filed with mainline aircraft. The benefits of <31 seats fall under the purview of Part 139 (airport certification) which enables any chartered/unscheduled operation to occur at any capable field regardless of certification category or lack thereof - same as scheduled and greater than 9 seats. Secondarily, the TSA has decided that 30 seat operations operated on a charter basis have a different security protocol than scheduled flights of 10 or more seats. Neither of these items has anything to do with Part 380 (Public Charters). It is coincidental that the bounds are 10 and 30 seats, but it - again - has nothing to do with Part 380.

Operating within the overlap of these three sets of regulations allows for competitive advantages that a Part 121 scheduled operation would not allow. They wouldn't be able to fly to Concord, Coachella Valley, Southern Pines, or as they formerly did - Hawthorne. They wouldn't be able to offer passengers an alternative to the standard TSA regimen. But it's not like this is free - they take a revenue hit by not having as many seats on well capable aircraft. Their tradeoff is between capacity and the benefits of operating in this unique space, obviously hoping to generate a revenue premium.

And that's the problem its not a level playing field if this is allowable for them why can't skywests of the world use there safer regulated to a higher standards aircraft in the same operation, this rule set either needs to be opened to all aircarriers with jets under 30 seats or closed, I also have problems with their use of pilots without an ATP as an FO again its compliant with how the three laws in question line up buts it was never the intention of how stuff like this was supposed to work and I hope its written out of the 135-380 which could be done rather easily.


It's a perfectly level playing field. SkyWest is welcome to start a clone operation tomorrow.

Skywest has a 121 certificate. That’s an apples to eggplant comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
weaglibrium
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:46 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Jet Suite Probably doesn't make that much for SNA that they would make special rules for them that they can't make for anybody else. They're an Air carrier and whether they're Part 135, Part 121 supplemental or Part 121 Domestic doesn't matter. What matters is? nobody is above the law. What JSX is asking for? SNA might be hard pressed to justify to the FAA, TSA, and anybody else which puts them in a bad light when it comes to funding, so I'd doubt JSX is really worth the Hassle to Justify. We know what JSX wants but at what cost is it to SNA? or? their airport development funds? Have any of you thought of that?


What exactly is JSX requesting that "SNA might be hard pressed to justify to the FAS [or] TSA?" Their model is totally legal.

well? Were another carrier to want to bypass TSA and operate remotely? SNA might be Hard pressed to tell them NO as they already did this for one carrier and what you can do for One? you CAN do for another. So what's tp prevent another carrier with maybe a twice a week 777 from operating remotely? they May or may NOT carry any more pax than JSX. So under what legal grounds would you deny them while Honoring JSX? Because? What's good for the Goose? Is good for the Gander. And Lets not dance around the fact that SNA is a desirable destination and will be even More so when this Covid -19 virus is in hand. I don't have anything against JSX. But? When you stretch for One in a public? You've let the Camel's nose under the tent flap and soon toy might be sleeping with the Camel in your Tent. And? 1this is what I think SNA is trying to avoid. Right or NOT? It's good Logic. And? That's what I'm stating. There are other commercial Airports that might be in the same situation and it could be SNA is setting a precedent.

No one, including JSX, is "bypassing" TSA. TSA is involved with JSX and JSX is charged to implement a TSA-approved protocol. Also, it's not an airline's choice. TSA would require regular screening for a 777 operation, even if it operated remotely. See spots charters - they may or may not be screened by TSA personnel but will be screened in a similar fashion either by the airline or a contractor. Please don't use all the euphemisms in the world to make a point that is invalid.
 
heretothere
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:50 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:42 pm

weaglibrium wrote:
DashTrash wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Where did I say they were “non-scheduled”; they clearly are, but Part 380 allows for exactly their operation. Have they been cited by the FAA for a violation? Has a cease desist order been presented to them? No, they’re legal and characterizing them as using a “loophole” is being insulting and pejorative.

You’re not wrong about this, but: There is no way this side of the hot place that anyone that had anything to do with writing 380 intended for it to be used so an operator could remove 7-20 seats from an aircraft certificated for 37-50 seats and fly it in a scheduled operation. With that being said, the term “shady” comes to mind. Otherwise, those aircraft would be flying on a 121 certificate in a configuration closer to what was certified. Especially on the 145s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are conflating multiple issues. Part 380 is the commercial / operational relationship and has nothing to do with the benefits of 30 or fewer seats - most Part 380 prospectuses are filed with mainline aircraft. The benefits of <31 seats fall under the purview of Part 139 (airport certification) which enables any chartered/unscheduled operation to occur at any capable field regardless of certification category or lack thereof - same as scheduled and greater than 9 seats. Secondarily, the TSA has decided that 30 seat operations operated on a charter basis have a different security protocol than scheduled flights of 10 or more seats. Neither of these items has anything to do with Part 380 (Public Charters). It is coincidental that the bounds are 10 and 30 seats, but it - again - has nothing to do with Part 380.

Operating within the overlap of these three sets of regulations allows for competitive advantages that a Part 121 scheduled operation would not allow. They wouldn't be able to fly to Concord, Coachella Valley, Southern Pines, or as they formerly did - Hawthorne. They wouldn't be able to offer passengers an alternative to the standard TSA regimen. But it's not like this is free - they take a revenue hit by not having as many seats on well capable aircraft. Their tradeoff is between capacity and the benefits of operating in this unique space, obviously hoping to generate a revenue premium.


Thank you for this explanation which makes sense for JSX. If I may take this slightly off topic though, do you know why Contour finds it beneficial to operate using the same model? As far as I know, they operate entirely from Part 139 airports and use TSA/main terminals at their airports. Is there a third constraint that limits Part 135 to 30 seats? Otherwise it seems like Contour could operate at full ERJ capacity unless I’m missing something (which I probably am).
 
trueblew
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:43 pm

weaglibrium wrote:
DashTrash wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Where did I say they were “non-scheduled”; they clearly are, but Part 380 allows for exactly their operation. Have they been cited by the FAA for a violation? Has a cease desist order been presented to them? No, they’re legal and characterizing them as using a “loophole” is being insulting and pejorative.

You’re not wrong about this, but: There is no way this side of the hot place that anyone that had anything to do with writing 380 intended for it to be used so an operator could remove 7-20 seats from an aircraft certificated for 37-50 seats and fly it in a scheduled operation. With that being said, the term “shady” comes to mind. Otherwise, those aircraft would be flying on a 121 certificate in a configuration closer to what was certified. Especially on the 145s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are conflating multiple issues. Part 380 is the commercial / operational relationship and has nothing to do with the benefits of 30 or fewer seats - most Part 380 prospectuses are filed with mainline aircraft. The benefits of <31 seats fall under the purview of Part 139 (airport certification) which enables any chartered/unscheduled operation to occur at any capable field regardless of certification category or lack thereof - same as scheduled and greater than 9 seats. Secondarily, the TSA has decided that 30 seat operations operated on a charter basis have a different security protocol than scheduled flights of 10 or more seats. Neither of these items has anything to do with Part 380 (Public Charters). It is coincidental that the bounds are 10 and 30 seats, but it - again - has nothing to do with Part 380.

Operating within the overlap of these three sets of regulations allows for competitive advantages that a Part 121 scheduled operation would not allow. They wouldn't be able to fly to Concord, Coachella Valley, Southern Pines, or as they formerly did - Hawthorne. They wouldn't be able to offer passengers an alternative to the standard TSA regimen. But it's not like this is free - they take a revenue hit by not having as many seats on well capable aircraft. Their tradeoff is between capacity and the benefits of operating in this unique space, obviously hoping to generate a revenue premium.


bUt I'm IgNoRaNt So I dOn'T tHiNk It'S fAiR. tHiS iS sHaDy!!1!

Thank you for your concise explanation as to why this business arrangement is neither shady nor a "loophole" in the law. I'm not a regular JSX user but I can see the void it fills and it's an interesting business model. More power to them.
 
weaglibrium
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:53 pm

heretothere wrote:
weaglibrium wrote:
DashTrash wrote:
You’re not wrong about this, but: There is no way this side of the hot place that anyone that had anything to do with writing 380 intended for it to be used so an operator could remove 7-20 seats from an aircraft certificated for 37-50 seats and fly it in a scheduled operation. With that being said, the term “shady” comes to mind. Otherwise, those aircraft would be flying on a 121 certificate in a configuration closer to what was certified. Especially on the 145s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are conflating multiple issues. Part 380 is the commercial / operational relationship and has nothing to do with the benefits of 30 or fewer seats - most Part 380 prospectuses are filed with mainline aircraft. The benefits of <31 seats fall under the purview of Part 139 (airport certification) which enables any chartered/unscheduled operation to occur at any capable field regardless of certification category or lack thereof - same as scheduled and greater than 9 seats. Secondarily, the TSA has decided that 30 seat operations operated on a charter basis have a different security protocol than scheduled flights of 10 or more seats. Neither of these items has anything to do with Part 380 (Public Charters). It is coincidental that the bounds are 10 and 30 seats, but it - again - has nothing to do with Part 380.

Operating within the overlap of these three sets of regulations allows for competitive advantages that a Part 121 scheduled operation would not allow. They wouldn't be able to fly to Concord, Coachella Valley, Southern Pines, or as they formerly did - Hawthorne. They wouldn't be able to offer passengers an alternative to the standard TSA regimen. But it's not like this is free - they take a revenue hit by not having as many seats on well capable aircraft. Their tradeoff is between capacity and the benefits of operating in this unique space, obviously hoping to generate a revenue premium.


Thank you for this explanation which makes sense for JSX. If I may take this slightly off topic though, do you know why Contour finds it beneficial to operate using the same model? As far as I know, they operate entirely from Part 139 airports and use TSA/main terminals at their airports. Is there a third constraint that limits Part 135 to 30 seats? Otherwise it seems like Contour could operate at full ERJ capacity unless I’m missing something (which I probably am).


CFM/Contour is set up as a Part 135 carrier and doesn't have a 121 certificate. In EAS markets they operate modified J31s with 9 seats 135 "scheduled" OR the same aircraft at capacity as 135/ "scheduled charter" in AEAS markets.
 
heretothere
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:50 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:54 pm

weaglibrium wrote:
heretothere wrote:
weaglibrium wrote:

You are conflating multiple issues. Part 380 is the commercial / operational relationship and has nothing to do with the benefits of 30 or fewer seats - most Part 380 prospectuses are filed with mainline aircraft. The benefits of <31 seats fall under the purview of Part 139 (airport certification) which enables any chartered/unscheduled operation to occur at any capable field regardless of certification category or lack thereof - same as scheduled and greater than 9 seats. Secondarily, the TSA has decided that 30 seat operations operated on a charter basis have a different security protocol than scheduled flights of 10 or more seats. Neither of these items has anything to do with Part 380 (Public Charters). It is coincidental that the bounds are 10 and 30 seats, but it - again - has nothing to do with Part 380.

Operating within the overlap of these three sets of regulations allows for competitive advantages that a Part 121 scheduled operation would not allow. They wouldn't be able to fly to Concord, Coachella Valley, Southern Pines, or as they formerly did - Hawthorne. They wouldn't be able to offer passengers an alternative to the standard TSA regimen. But it's not like this is free - they take a revenue hit by not having as many seats on well capable aircraft. Their tradeoff is between capacity and the benefits of operating in this unique space, obviously hoping to generate a revenue premium.


Thank you for this explanation which makes sense for JSX. If I may take this slightly off topic though, do you know why Contour finds it beneficial to operate using the same model? As far as I know, they operate entirely from Part 139 airports and use TSA/main terminals at their airports. Is there a third constraint that limits Part 135 to 30 seats? Otherwise it seems like Contour could operate at full ERJ capacity unless I’m missing something (which I probably am).


CFM/Contour is set up as a Part 135 carrier and doesn't have a 121 certificate. In EAS markets they operate modified J31s with 9 seats 135 "scheduled" OR the same aircraft at capacity as 135/ "scheduled charter" in AEAS markets.


Thanks, I guess I’m wondering why Contour’s ER3s couldn’t seat 37 instead of 30 if it’s not an airport certificate or passenger screening constraint. Is there a hard cap on part 135 operations at 30 seats?
 
sprxUSA
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:17 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:01 pm

Contour no longer uses the Jetstream on the EAS routes.
Gem State Airlines..."we have a gem of an airline"
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4787
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:47 pm

SNA might try to kick them out but who's to say it's legal. JSX might win in a court or buy more time. I see losing SNA as a huge problem for the entire airlines survival. JSX might fight this pretty hard unless they have a plan B.

I have had zero delays or issues on JSX, loved the experience very fast and seamless
 
jholio
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:23 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:14 pm

heretothere wrote:
weaglibrium wrote:
heretothere wrote:

Thank you for this explanation which makes sense for JSX. If I may take this slightly off topic though, do you know why Contour finds it beneficial to operate using the same model? As far as I know, they operate entirely from Part 139 airports and use TSA/main terminals at their airports. Is there a third constraint that limits Part 135 to 30 seats? Otherwise it seems like Contour could operate at full ERJ capacity unless I’m missing something (which I probably am).


CFM/Contour is set up as a Part 135 carrier and doesn't have a 121 certificate. In EAS markets they operate modified J31s with 9 seats 135 "scheduled" OR the same aircraft at capacity as 135/ "scheduled charter" in AEAS markets.


Thanks, I guess I’m wondering why Contour’s ER3s couldn’t seat 37 instead of 30 if it’s not an airport certificate or passenger screening constraint. Is there a hard cap on part 135 operations at 30 seats?


Yes, Part-135 operations are capped at 30 seats.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24692
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:55 pm

Orange County Board of Supervisors yesterday adopted the airports new general aviation plan which clears way for $150mil modernization of FBO facilities.

As part of the plan, JSX, will no longer be able to operate in the general aviation portion of the airport under a provision that bans regularly scheduled commercial flight operations.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
njeinaz
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:22 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:44 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Orange County Board of Supervisors yesterday adopted the airports new general aviation plan which clears way for $150mil modernization of FBO facilities.

As part of the plan, JSX, will no longer be able to operate in the general aviation portion of the airport under a provision that bans regularly scheduled commercial flight operations.


An article in the Orange County Register regarding the decision by the OC Board of Supervisors:

https://www.ocregister.com/2020/09/15/orange-county-approves-35-year-leases-for-jwa-small-plane-service-facilities/
 
BDubs1170
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 2:10 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:34 am

Yikes...this is no bueno. But I really don’t see why JSX should be treated differently from any other commercial airline; or, put another way, why SNA can’t require them to function like the other commercial airlines if they so choose.

Part of me wonders if this is retribution after SNA made a bid for JetBlue’s expanded routes on the west coast which went to LAX instead.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:28 am

This should be left up to the FAA to decide. Otherwise what's to stop SNA from making you go through TSA at the terminal to get to your SR-22?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5027
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:15 pm

williaminsd wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

What exactly is JSX requesting that "SNA might be hard pressed to justify to the FAS [or] TSA?" Their model is totally legal.

well? Were another carrier to want to bypass TSA and operate remotely? SNA might be Hard pressed to tell them NO as they already did this for one carrier and what you can do for One? you CAN do for another. So what's tp prevent another carrier with maybe a twice a week 777 from operating remotely? they May or may NOT carry any more pax than JSX. So under what legal grounds would you deny them while Honoring JSX? Because? What's good for the Goose? Is good for the Gander. And Lets not dance around the fact that SNA is a desirable destination and will be even More so when this Covid -19 virus is in hand. I don't have anything against JSX. But? When you stretch for One in a public? You've let the Camel's nose under the tent flap and soon toy might be sleeping with the Camel in your Tent. And? 1this is what I think SNA is trying to avoid. Right or NOT? It's good Logic. And? That's what I'm stating. There are other commercial Airports that might be in the same situation and it could be SNA is setting a precedent.


Wouldn't they still have to comply with applicable federal regulations? I think the runway at SNA might play a role in your 777 scenario as well lol. JSX simply is operating a business as allowed under the law. There is nothing "shady" about it, nor is there any "stretching" of regulations or law for the sole benefit of JSX. And I'm pretty sure there are no camels or geese...

Do JSX pax counts apply to any SNA passenger or flight total caps?

If not, then that is probably what this is all about. OC nimby(s) do not want to see caps eroded and are using land use regulations to enforce them.

One thing's for sure. It's not about safety, security, and accountability...[/quoteI never said it was about anything other than what SNA could Justify. And?
Maybe SNA could no longer justify what JSX was doing? All the other Airlines might care and ask why is JSX beong allowed to play by their rules and NOT by the same rules everybody else plays by? Especially since NONE of us knows what went on behind the scenes. Were I an ariline ops manager at SNA for another regional or major? I might ask the same thing. Especially if I'm paying for gate rental? And they're NOT. Do you get where I'm coming from? It's not a mater of Like or dislike. It's a matter of Business. If they can do it? Then I'd better be able to do it! especially if they're hauling passengers just like I'm doing from the Same Airport and I wouldn't care to where. That's not my problem. Now I'm not saying that happened because I don't know BUT? That could have been in the conversation. Who among us KNOWS?
 
williaminsd
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:52 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:18 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
williaminsd wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
well? Were another carrier to want to bypass TSA and operate remotely? SNA might be Hard pressed to tell them NO as they already did this for one carrier and what you can do for One? you CAN do for another. So what's tp prevent another carrier with maybe a twice a week 777 from operating remotely? they May or may NOT carry any more pax than JSX. So under what legal grounds would you deny them while Honoring JSX? Because? What's good for the Goose? Is good for the Gander. And Lets not dance around the fact that SNA is a desirable destination and will be even More so when this Covid -19 virus is in hand. I don't have anything against JSX. But? When you stretch for One in a public? You've let the Camel's nose under the tent flap and soon toy might be sleeping with the Camel in your Tent. And? 1this is what I think SNA is trying to avoid. Right or NOT? It's good Logic. And? That's what I'm stating. There are other commercial Airports that might be in the same situation and it could be SNA is setting a precedent.


Wouldn't they still have to comply with applicable federal regulations? I think the runway at SNA might play a role in your 777 scenario as well lol. JSX simply is operating a business as allowed under the law. There is nothing "shady" about it, nor is there any "stretching" of regulations or law for the sole benefit of JSX. And I'm pretty sure there are no camels or geese...

Do JSX pax counts apply to any SNA passenger or flight total caps?

If not, then that is probably what this is all about. OC nimby(s) do not want to see caps eroded and are using land use regulations to enforce them.

One thing's for sure. It's not about safety, security, and accountability...[/quoteI never said it was about anything other than what SNA could Justify. And?
Maybe SNA could no longer justify what JSX was doing? All the other Airlines might care and ask why is JSX beong allowed to play by their rules and NOT by the same rules everybody else plays by? Especially since NONE of us knows what went on behind the scenes. Were I an ariline ops manager at SNA for another regional or major? I might ask the same thing. Especially if I'm paying for gate rental? And they're NOT. Do you get where I'm coming from? It's not a mater of Like or dislike. It's a matter of Business. If they can do it? Then I'd better be able to do it! especially if they're hauling passengers just like I'm doing from the Same Airport and I wouldn't care to where. That's not my problem. Now I'm not saying that happened because I don't know BUT? That could have been in the conversation. Who among us KNOWS?


What is the law JSX is breaking? It's kind of important in this whole thing...

"Law." What is it?
 
zuckie13
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:42 pm

williaminsd wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
williaminsd wrote:


Wouldn't they still have to comply with applicable federal regulations? I think the runway at SNA might play a role in your 777 scenario as well lol. JSX simply is operating a business as allowed under the law. There is nothing "shady" about it, nor is there any "stretching" of regulations or law for the sole benefit of JSX. And I'm pretty sure there are no camels or geese...

Do JSX pax counts apply to any SNA passenger or flight total caps?

If not, then that is probably what this is all about. OC nimby(s) do not want to see caps eroded and are using land use regulations to enforce them.

One thing's for sure. It's not about safety, security, and accountability...[/quoteI never said it was about anything other than what SNA could Justify. And?
Maybe SNA could no longer justify what JSX was doing? All the other Airlines might care and ask why is JSX beong allowed to play by their rules and NOT by the same rules everybody else plays by? Especially since NONE of us knows what went on behind the scenes. Were I an ariline ops manager at SNA for another regional or major? I might ask the same thing. Especially if I'm paying for gate rental? And they're NOT. Do you get where I'm coming from? It's not a mater of Like or dislike. It's a matter of Business. If they can do it? Then I'd better be able to do it! especially if they're hauling passengers just like I'm doing from the Same Airport and I wouldn't care to where. That's not my problem. Now I'm not saying that happened because I don't know BUT? That could have been in the conversation. Who among us KNOWS?


What is the law JSX is breaking? It's kind of important in this whole thing...

"Law." What is it?


The are not breaking any law - but the put things together in what is most likely an unexpected way when the laws an regulations were written.

Part 135 of course exists to allow an airline to run it's defined type of operations.
Part 380 that keeps getting harped on was written with the thought that Joe's travel was going to sell travel packages to Disney or somewhere, and arrange a public charter aircraft under this section to have their passengers travel. Why would an "airline" ever need to use this part, since the would own the aircraft already? They would not be expected to.

The JSX folks realized that they could own a parent company that acts as the Part 380 travel agency, and a subsidiary company that is a Part 135 carrier they could do this type of operation. Putting things in the law together to do something that was not obvious, expected or intended = loophole.

Loophole: an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules

The same as someone using tax loopholes - the are not breaking any law, but the outcome is not what the writers of the law/regs expected.

Do I think the FAA or lawmakers are in any rush to change this? NO
Do I have any issue with JSX running this operation? NO
Is SNA in their rights to not accept this type of operation at the FBO that sounds like it is has agreed limits on passenger numbers being violated right now? Yes
 
williaminsd
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:52 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:20 pm

zuckie13 wrote:
williaminsd wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:

Wouldn't they still have to comply with applicable federal regulations? I think the runway at SNA might play a role in your 777 scenario as well lol. JSX simply is operating a business as allowed under the law. There is nothing "shady" about it, nor is there any "stretching" of regulations or law for the sole benefit of JSX. And I'm pretty sure there are no camels or geese...

Do JSX pax counts apply to any SNA passenger or flight total caps?

If not, then that is probably what this is all about. OC nimby(s) do not want to see caps eroded and are using land use regulations to enforce them.

One thing's for sure. It's not about safety, security, and accountability...[/quoteI never said it was about anything other than what SNA could Justify. And?
Maybe SNA could no longer justify what JSX was doing? All the other Airlines might care and ask why is JSX beong allowed to play by their rules and NOT by the same rules everybody else plays by? Especially since NONE of us knows what went on behind the scenes. Were I an ariline ops manager at SNA for another regional or major? I might ask the same thing. Especially if I'm paying for gate rental? And they're NOT. Do you get where I'm coming from? It's not a mater of Like or dislike. It's a matter of Business. If they can do it? Then I'd better be able to do it! especially if they're hauling passengers just like I'm doing from the Same Airport and I wouldn't care to where. That's not my problem. Now I'm not saying that happened because I don't know BUT? That could have been in the conversation. Who among us KNOWS?


What is the law JSX is breaking? It's kind of important in this whole thing...

"Law." What is it?


The are not breaking any law - but the put things together in what is most likely an unexpected way when the laws an regulations were written.

Part 135 of course exists to allow an airline to run it's defined type of operations.
Part 380 that keeps getting harped on was written with the thought that Joe's travel was going to sell travel packages to Disney or somewhere, and arrange a public charter aircraft under this section to have their passengers travel. Why would an "airline" ever need to use this part, since the would own the aircraft already? They would not be expected to.

The JSX folks realized that they could own a parent company that acts as the Part 380 travel agency, and a subsidiary company that is a Part 135 carrier they could do this type of operation. Putting things in the law together to do something that was not obvious, expected or intended = loophole.

Loophole: an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules

The same as someone using tax loopholes - the are not breaking any law, but the outcome is not what the writers of the law/regs expected.

Do I think the FAA or lawmakers are in any rush to change this? NO
Do I have any issue with JSX running this operation? NO
Is SNA in their rights to not accept this type of operation at the FBO that sounds like it is has agreed limits on passenger numbers being violated right now? Yes


If only that had been the question posed... (Hint: it wasn't.)

And thanks ever so much for your "definition" of loophole, but you don't get to make those rules.

We have precision in the law for a reason. If you don't like the law, or the result of the law as it is written, you don't get to arbitrarily change it to your liking.

JSX has a business model that adheres to the law as it is written. If you, or anyone or any entity, doesn't like it, then change the law. I have noted that JSX may have their own concerns about standing since they went to the public instead of immediately to court, but that's their call. Have to imagine their pretty sharp and know the best way to respond.

Can Orange County change its zoning that effectively forces an existing, legal operation out of business? That is an issue to be decided, probably in the courts, but neither I, nor any of the experts here get to decide that.

Amazing that this is such a difficult concept for some of you...
 
ScottB
Posts: 7039
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:35 pm

williaminsd wrote:
Can Orange County change its zoning that effectively forces an existing, legal operation out of business? That is an issue to be decided, probably in the courts, but neither I, nor any of the experts here get to decide that.


JSX can try to take its case to the courts, but it's exceedingly likely to lose a suit against Orange County based on precedent; specifically, Western Air Lines v. Port Authority of NY & NJ. They aren't being kicked out of the airport and they aren't being forced out of business. They are being required to compete on equal terms with other scheduled carriers at the airport.

williaminsd wrote:
And thanks ever so much for your "definition" of loophole, but you don't get to make those rules.


If you don't understand what the generally accepted meaning of "loophole" is, well that is your problem.
 
Murdoughnut
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:43 pm

F9Animal wrote:
Wow!! Unreal!! I swear SNA has no heart whatsoever. The pandemic was enough, but to take aim at JSX is just insanity. Maybe JSX will be better off without that airport?


No airport is turning down money, particularly at a time like this. In fact, the FAA wouldn't allow it in most cases.

The only feasible explanation was that they were in arrears.
 
zuckie13
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:50 pm

williaminsd wrote:
And thanks ever so much for your "definition" of loophole, but you don't get to make those rules.


You are correct - I don't get to make the rules (well, this isn't a rule, it's a definition), and neither do you. That's why I deferred to the good folks at Oxford for that one.
You may not like the definition, but that's what it is.
 
nws2002
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: JSX Getting Kicked Out of SNA, Effective Jan 1 2021

Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:21 pm

ScottB wrote:
williaminsd wrote:
Can Orange County change its zoning that effectively forces an existing, legal operation out of business? That is an issue to be decided, probably in the courts, but neither I, nor any of the experts here get to decide that.


JSX can try to take its case to the courts, but it's exceedingly likely to lose a suit against Orange County based on precedent; specifically, Western Air Lines v. Port Authority of NY & NJ. They aren't being kicked out of the airport and they aren't being forced out of business. They are being required to compete on equal terms with other scheduled carriers at the airport.


I would imagine that JSX's argument is that they are not a "scheduled air carrier". Part 380 specifically says a "charter flight means a flight operated under the terms of a charter contract between a direct air carrier and its customer. It does not include scheduled air transportation..."

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos